alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM THOMAS CLARK,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 42 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5th day of July, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 10079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02847]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

[Notice-PBS-2024-02; Docket No. 2024-0002; Sequence No.3]


Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
for the Alcan Land Port of Entry Expansion and Modernization in Alcan, 
Alaska; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration 
(GSA).

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: GSA is announcing the withdrawal of the Notice of availability 
of a draft environmental impact statement for the Alcan land port of 
entry expansion and modernization in Alcan, Alaska. The February 7,2024 
notice announced GSAs intent to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (DEIS) to analyze the potential environmental effects of the 
proposed expansion and modernization of the existing Alcan LPOE.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Evanson, Capital Project 
Manager, (206) 445-5876, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2e3cec1c3cceef2ede7e2c5d1c38cc5cdd4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fcbd909f9d92b0acb3b9bc9b8f9dd29b938a">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Notice of availability published in the 
Federal Register on February 7, 2024. GSA plans to publish at a later 
date.

Lois Mandell,
Director Regulatory Secretariat Division, Office of Government-wide 
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-02847 Filed 2-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-DL-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000727538
<NAME> ART.5 FDS FOR 10-K
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S.DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1,000
<CASH>                                       1,737,470
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,046,185
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,783,655
<PP&E>                                     162,877,903
<DEPRECIATION>                           (155,409,894)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,251,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,755,930
<BONDS>                                      1,997,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,498,234
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,251,664
<SALES>                                     17,510,612
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,535,311
<CGS>                                        5,537,026
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,537,026
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               871,370
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             339,045
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,126,915
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         11,126,915
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                11,126,915
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    7,032
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    7,032
        

</TABLE>
----

----

----

----

----

----

|   | A | = | Number of shares of Common Stock deemed to be outstanding immediately prior to new issue (includes all outstanding shares of Common Stock, all outstanding shares of preferred stock on an as-converted basis, and all outstanding options, warrants and other securities convertible into or exchangeable for shares of Common Stock on an as-exercised basis; and does not include any convertible securities converting into this round of financing) |
|--------|---|---|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | B | = | Aggregate consideration received by the Company with respect to the new issue divided by CP1 |
|--------|---|---|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

|                                   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|----------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| COMMUNICATION INTELLIGENCE CORPORATION |
|                                   |   |
| By:                                    |   | /s/ Craig Hutchison                                  |
| Name:                                  |   | Craig Hutchison                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| Title:                                 |   | Vice President and Assistant Treasurer                                                                                                                                                                                    |
# Eiropas Savienības C 340/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0952 |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 340 |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 59. sējums2016. gada 16. septembris |

ISSN 1977-0952

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 340

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

59. sējums2016. gada 16. septembris

---

| Paziņojums Nr. | Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Paziņojumi |
| | EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS IESTĀŽU UN STRUKTŪRU SNIEGTI PAZIŅOJUMI |
| | Eiropas ParlamentsPadome |
| 2016/C 340/01 | Komisijas paziņojums attiecībā uz Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2016. gada 14. septembra Regulu (ES) 2016/1627 par daudzgadu plānu zilās tunzivs krājumu atjaunošanai Atlantijas okeāna austrumu daļā un Vidusjūrā un ar ko atceļ Padomes Regulu (EK) Nr. 302/2009 | 1 |

Paziņojums Nr.

Saturs

Lappuse

IV   Paziņojumi

EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS IESTĀŽU UN STRUKTŪRU SNIEGTI PAZIŅOJUMI

Eiropas ParlamentsPadome

2016/C 340/01

Komisijas paziņojums attiecībā uz Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2016. gada 14. septembra Regulu (ES) 2016/1627 par daudzgadu plānu zilās tunzivs krājumu atjaunošanai Atlantijas okeāna austrumu daļā un Vidusjūrā un ar ko atceļ Padomes Regulu (EK) Nr. 302/2009

1

---

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

IV Paziņojumi

EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS IESTĀŽU UN STRUKTŪRU SNIEGTI PAZIŅOJUMI

Eiropas Parlaments Padome

| 16.9.2016 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 340/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2016

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 340/1

---

Komisijas paziņojums attiecībā uz Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2016. gada 14. septembra Regulu (ES) 2016/1627 par daudzgadu plānu zilās tunzivs krājumu atjaunošanai Atlantijas okeāna austrumu daļā un Vidusjūrā un ar ko atceļ Padomes Regulu (EK) Nr. 302/2009 (1)

(2016/C 340/01)

Komisija pauž bažas, ka ierobežotās pilnvaras, ko tai deleģējuši abi likumdevēji, var neļaut laikus ieviest ES tiesību aktos pasākumus, kurus ICCAT turpmāk pieņems, lai pārskatītu vai atjauninātu šīs organizācijas kontroles shēmu.

Tāpēc Komisija paziņo, ka uzskata šo regulu par tādu, kas neskar nekādu turpmāku iestādes nostāju attiecībā uz LESD 290. un 291. panta izmantošanu reģionālo zvejniecības pārvaldības organizāciju noteikto pasākumu transponēšanai.

Turklāt Komisija patur tiesības ierosināt regulā izdarīt grozījumus, lai palielinātu to pasākumu skaitu, kas būtu jāpieņem ar deleģētajiem vai īstenošanas aktiem, ja transponēšana ar parastās likumdošanas procedūras palīdzību radītu kavējumus, kuri savukārt apdraudētu ES spēju ievērot tās starptautiskās saistības.

---

(1)  OV L 252, 16.9.2016., 1. lpp.

---
#### Alberine KELLY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27694.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 25, 1955.

Nq 7⁄81⁄8) on appeal for appellant.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*277PER CURIAM.

The offense is the unlawful sale of whiskey in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed, and no motion for rehearing will be entertained in this appeal.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-21-00363-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF BEN GARZA, III, DECEASED

From the County Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-PC-0203

Honorable Bill Squires, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 16, 2022

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

On December 14, 2021, this court issued an order requiring appellant to provide written 

proof to this court no later than December 27, 2021 that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid 

or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal 

without paying the reporter’s fee. Our order stated that if appellant failed to respond within the 

time provided, appellant’s brief would be due no later than January 13, 2022, and the court would 

consider only those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record 

for a decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). Appellant did not file written proof in response to our 

order; therefore, appellant’s brief was due no later than January 13, 2022.

Neither appellant’s brief nor a motion for extension of time were filed by January 13, 2022. 

Consequently, on January 19, 2022, we ordered appellant to file, no later than January 31, 2022, 
04-21-00363-CV

- 2 -

her brief and a written response reasonably explaining: (1) her failure to timely file a brief, and (2) 

why appellee is not significantly injured by appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. Our order 

cautioned that if appellant failed to timely file a brief and the written response, we would dismiss 

the appeal for want of prosecution.

Appellant did not file a brief or the written response required by our January 19, 2022 

order. We accordingly dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1);

42.3(b)–(c).

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 23.2

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



SNODGRASS
Certified Public Accountants and Consultants


Board of Directors
Belmont Bancorp

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Belmont Bancorp. on Form S-8 (Registration No 333-45672) of our report dated May
19, 1999, on our audit of the consolidated  statements of income, changes in
shareholders' equity, and cash flows of Belmont Bancorp. and subsidiaries for
the  year  ended December 31, 1998, which report is included in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Belmont Bancorp. for the year ended December 31, 2000.


/s/ S. R. SNODGRASS, A.C.

Wheeling, West Virginia
March 26, 2001
**EXHIBIT 24.3**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

**(Annual Report on Form 10-K)**

The undersigned, an officer and/or director of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc., constitutes and appoints Nicholas Konidaris, John Metcalf and Kerry Mustoe, and eachof them, his or her true and lawful attorney and agent to do any and all acts and things and execute in his or her name as an officer or director of the Company the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 2, 2007 and any and allamendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and the undersigned does hereby ratify and confirm all that said attorneys and agents andeach of them shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. Any one of said attorneys or agents shall have, and may exercise, all powers conferred. 

Dated: July 26, 2007.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Michael M. Wick,
M.D., Ph.D., the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Telik, Inc. (the Company), and Cynthia M. Butitta, the Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her
knowledge:



1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30 , 2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.



* These certifications accompany the Form 10-Q to which they relate, are not deemed filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the
date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



Dated: August 5, 2003



|/s/ MICHAEL M. WICK                  |  | /s/ CYNTHIA M. BUTITTA                             
|------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|Michael M. Wick, M.D., Ph.D.         |  | Cynthia M. Butitta                                 
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |  | Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
March 15, 2012 

Mr. William Zeffiro 

Air Ventures Hawaii 

P.O. Box 3350 

Lihue, HI 96766 

Dear Mr. Zeffiro: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not 

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your March 1, 2012, exemption request on behalf of Air Ventures Hawaii into the 

public docket (No. FAA-2012-0239), but we are unable to process your request any further. 

The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). 

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send 

your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the 

exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Ida M. Klepper 

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure 
3 

Project No.: AAM-12-256-E 

Project Officer: _______________ 

ARM-105:TTHOMAS:03/05/12Doc#33813 

ARM-1/100/105:AAM-800 

MR WILLIAM ZEFFIRO 

AIR VENTURES HAWAII 

PO BOX 3350 

LIHUE HI 96766
#### Leonard KILBURN, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29354.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 11, 1957.

J. W. Reid, Abilene, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The appellant was convicted upon two counts of an information charging transportation and sale of whiskey in a dry area, with prior convictions alleged for enhancement; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $300 in each count.

Our able State’s Attorney confesses error, and we agree. There was no evidence adduced, nor do we find a stipulation, concerning the dry status of the area where the offenses are alleged to have been committed.

It has been the consistent holding of this Court that the dry status of the area must be proven or established by agreement of the parties. Weatherman v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 272, 276 S.W.2d 524.

The judgment is reversed.
Exhibit
        32.1
 
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In
        connection with the annual report of Communication Intelligence Corporation
        (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2006, as filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
        I, Guido DiGregorio, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant
        to
        18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002,
        that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)
        The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
        The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date;  March
        23,
        2007
 
 By:
        /s/
        Guido D. DiGregorio
 Chairman
        and Chief Executive Officer
## 

Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 2-99511 effective July 18, 1985; File No. 33-32070
effective December 5, 1989; File No. 33-34621 effective May 20, 1990; File No. 33-35368 effective July 1, 1990; File No. 33-35990 effective July 24,
1990; File No. 33-45351 effective January 28, 1992; File No. 333-70545 effective January 13, 1999) of Minntech Corporation of our report dated May 8, 2000 relating
to the financial statements and financial statement schedules, which appears on page 44 of this Form 10K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
June 26, 2000

---

## QuickLinks
Opinion issued October 16 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 14
- 00180
- CR

——————————— RICARDO ORDONEZ , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1399320

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Ricardo Ordonez , pleaded guilty to the felony offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 years of age

. 1 The trial court found appellant g uilty and, in accordance with the terms of appellant’s plea bargain

1 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 22 .0 21 (a)(1)(B)(i), (a)(2)(B) (West Supp. 201 4 )

.2

agreement with the State, sentenced appellant t o 35 years’ imprisonment . Acting
pro se , appellant filed a notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. A plea bargain case is one in which “a defendant's plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a)(2). In a plea ba rgain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 44.02 (West 2006) ; T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a) (2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d). Here, the trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. See id

. Th e trial court’s certification states that this is a plea bargain case and that the defendant has no right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2 ). The record supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. See Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who3

plea

- bargained is permit ted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).